June 21, 2012

I'm transcribing from the video at the link, which includes an article that doesn't contain that text. You can see the whole reenactment in the video too, and the article does have text from the reenactment. I thought the Cuomo analysis was really interesting. Is George Zimmerman's reenactment of the killing of Trayvon Martin too good?

Cuomo also says:

For the prosecution, they can look at this, match it up to the 911 call, they can match it up to witness accounts. We now know Zimmerman's own statement. Somebody may have seen the fight in progress. Huge use for the prosecutors. Measure his demeanor. Does he change his story? How is he? Calm? Too calm? His wounds, on his head... Ballistics. He says where he shot Trayvon and how....

Everything he says — detail by detail — now this could work for or against — is perfect as a justification for what he did...

Interesting to think about how the seeming perfection of the justification is what makes it suspicious and how the prosecutorial mind works its way into that statement to find how to flip it into evidence of guilt.

It could be perfect by design or by fact, but as you allude too, it's amazing to me the ubiquitous human bias we have about such a thing. People seem to have a natural tendency to reject Occam's razor. To assume another less likely explanation more likely. I think it's an attempt to not be seen as a sucker - to identify oneself as smarter than others. Sometimes that the right thing, but when without any evidence of it, it's just a bias away from the facts.

I can accept that the facts might be fooling me, but so far they seem to be surprisingly consistent in favor of Zimmerman's story. That should not make me suspicious of them. Zimmerman didn't make these facts up - they just are.

I've been vaguely bemused by the right side of the blogosphere which says we don't know what really happened, we weren't there, we shouldn't rush to judgment, we should all keep an open mind so that we can all realize that George Zimmerman is totally innocent and that Trayvon Martin totally got what he deserved.

Also interesting that nobody seems to want to talk about Raul Rodriguez, that fellow in Texas who recorded himself saying, "I'm standing my ground here!" before shooting to death his unarmed neighbor in a dispute over a noisy party. (A jury convicted him of murder? In Texas?)

Interesting to think about how the seeming perfection of the justification is what makes it suspicious and how the prosecutorial mind works its way into that statement to find how to flip it into evidence of guilt.

My thought, exactly. And how it's a twist - but not that much different - from those who wish to ignore the imperfections in Romney and his cult's presentation, in order to make it "work."

Allowing people to see what they want to see (or believe what they want to believe) is wildly out of control in this culture,...

Given all the government and media resources now arrayed against him, I don't envy Zimmerman one bit. He's caught in a cross between the Spanish Inquisition of the Roman Coliseum. And if those don't get him, it'll be death by a thousand cuts.

There is that classic law school video about why you should never make a statement to the police. bout anything, because even if what you say is perfectly true, a witness can come forward with a mistaken fact pattern that puts the defendant's prior statement in doubt, not only on that fact, but every other claim...

Lastly, the point of the post is that Cuomo thinks that the lack of evidence against Zimmerman is evidence against Zimmerman. It's a stark example of someone who wants something to be true, then when presented with evidence that that something is not true, cannot allow logic to proceed due to the massive amounts of cognitive dissonance.

Do you have anything to say about that? Is it too difficult for you to stay focused on the topic at hand? Or do you simply want to start throwing out examples of other things that are in no way related to the Zimmerman case, nor the cognitive dissonance of Cuomo?

With the town's police chief being fired today for not arresting Zimmerman, I think it's safe to say that everyone working this case should not only be fired, they should be facing criminal charges. They are all pandering to those stoked up by the Democrats for political gain. Where are the other legal experts like Alan Dershowitz? Do you want to see the US go down this road? The narrative cooked up by the Obama campaign, Kos, and Talking Points Memo has been exposed as a lie. Isn't it time that everyone should be getting that out or face some consequences? I sthis some new Cloward–Piven strategy to send the US into chaos with all sides disrespecting the rule of law?

Stay on point. What does Raul Rodriguez have to do with Zimmerman? I mean at all?

Simply the concept of armed self-defense. I'm still trying to wrap my little brain around the idea that Zimmerman, who had the gun, had absolutely no choice but to fatally shoot Martin. (Isn't an argument in favor of a legally armed citizenry the idea that guns in the right hands will reduce violence, not increase it?)

Any investigator will tell you when all witnesses say the same thing that's a red flag. That doesn't appear to be the case here, but @ least worth noting. I tend to look @ these stories more clinically than most. I do know this. NOBODY here KNOWS what happened that night.

I've been vaguely bemused by the right side of the blogosphere which says we don't know what really happened, we weren't there, we shouldn't rush to judgment, we should all keep an open mind so that we can all realize that George Zimmerman is totally innocent and that Trayvon Martin totally got what he deserved.

Buddy needs to re-read my comment.

I was referring to the media.

The Lefties love to use "reading comprehension" as a crutch when their argument goes south, but are chronically deficient themselves.

And most of us were "wait and see" when this thing broke - unlike the Lefties who were hot to hang Zimmerman from day 1.

Since a lot more facts have come to light, people have formed opinions.

That's what intelligent people do - when they have the facts, not a lynch mob mentality.

Stay on point. What does Raul Rodriguez have to do with Zimmerman? I mean at all?

Simply the concept of armed self-defense. I'm still trying to wrap my little brain around the idea that Zimmerman, who had the gun, had absolutely no choice but to fatally shoot Martin.

You really can't think of distinguishing factors between these two cases? If you think they are comparable, that may be why your little brain cannot grasp the idea that a guy whose head is being pounded into concrete may be in reasonable fear for his life.

I too am pretty disappointed in the legal profession with this. A rare few, like Dershowitz, have stood up and made the case for reason and against mob justice. If they don't make the case and stand for legal process, who will - the janitors, the doctors. What is it they teach in law school?

You know all about me on the basis of a couple of postings? Me, who visits Althouse.com? Instanpundit? Legal Insurrection? I've also been known to drop in on HotAir, PowerLine and NewsBusters from time to time. (I rarely visit DailyKos because they're so damned predictable over there.)

Don't rush to judge!

(Who was it that said, "Name-calling is the last refuge of someone who can't intelligently argue?" Actually, I just made that one up. :)

Libtard: Seems to me Professor Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection has taken a similar stance in his postings - Zimmerman Is Obviously Innocent, and only people who have prejudged this case don't realize it.

I see. The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is too difficult to master.

Likely you came here because Professor Jacobson handed your ass to you. As did Tom McGuire at JustOneMinute and Jeralyn at TalkLeft.

I've been vaguely bemused by the right side of the blogosphere which says we don't know what really happened, we weren't there, we shouldn't rush to judgment, we should all keep an open mind so that we can all realize that George Zimmerman is totally innocent and that Trayvon Martin totally got what he deserved.

You strike me as the sort of person who spends his entire life being bemused.

Also interesting that nobody seems to want to talk about Raul Rodriguez, that fellow in Texas who recorded himself saying, "I'm standing my ground here!" before shooting to death his unarmed neighbor in a dispute over a noisy party. (A jury convicted him of murder? In Texas?)

"'m still trying to wrap my little brain around the idea that Zimmerman, who had the gun, had absolutely no choice but to fatally shoot Martin."

That depends entirely on what Martin did. If you have a gun you can threaten to use it to prevent shooting, but that assumes you have the time, and that the other guy respects that threat. Not to mention, doing that is usually illegal. Do you have another scenario where an armed Zimmerman could have avoided shooting if a man attacks, mounts and is beating his head against concrete?

MrBuddwing: "I'm still trying to wrap my little brain around the idea that Zimmerman, who had the gun, had absolutely no choice but to fatally shoot Martin."

Yeah. Maybe Zimmerman could have used a spinning back-kick of death like MrBuddwing saw on Enter the Dragon.

Or maybe he could have pulled out his handgun and pointed it at Martin, shouting "Freeze or I'll shoot", like Humphrey Bogart might have in any one of a dozen enjoyable films. If only Martin hadn't been sitting on Zimmerman's chest and pounding his head into the sidewalk.

It's a real puzzler, alright.

"(Isn't an argument in favor of a legally armed citizenry the idea that guns in the right hands will reduce violence, not increase it?)"

Had Zimmerman been open-carrying, instead of concealed, deterrence might have been a factor. Unfortunately and ironically, you'll get hassled by the cops by open-carrying in most states. Ohio police will put you on the ground, cuff you, and take your weapon.

And statistically, in the long run, yes, concealed carry does discourage violence. But you'll still have the occasional stupid young man hopped up on pot-marijuana who thinks he's Bruce Lee. I guess you think it would be better if strong young men were free to smash weaker men's heads in, as long as no one is armed with scarey weapons.

Interesting to think about how the seeming perfection of the justification is what makes it suspicious and how the prosecutorial mind works its way into that statement to find how to flip it into evidence of guilt.

You have the right to remain silent. ANYTHING you say can AND WILL be used against you in a court of law.

That is why even the most innocent of people are advised to SHUT THE HELL UP when questioned by police. You must assume that they will always and everywhere twist and distort your words.

Let's be clear -- police do NOT question you in order to "find the facts." The purpose of police questioning is to create EVIDENCE TO USE AGAINST YOU. Their job is not to discover the truth, their job is to PUT YOU IN JAIL.

If I'm not mistaken, the reenactment was made the day after the shooting, to police investigators. The articles do not say (poor reporting), but Zimmerman's website shows it was made on 2/27. That means he made this statement to the police, very likely prior to involvement of his attorney. (An attorney would likely have advised him against such a statement).

That leads me to not quite conclude, but strongly believe that he is telling the truth. Sure, he likely knows parts of the law of self defense, but his story remains consistent.

Also, I listened to his interview with the investigator. He seems distressed, and the investigator tells Zimmerman that he can get help for that - he'll have nightmares, etc.

Reasonable doubt is a high standard. In the event this cased makes it to a jury, I doubt they can convict. A prosecutor cannot argue that he's guilty because all of the evidence shows he's innocent.

Forgive me if I am repeating another's point (have not read the comments) but Z man does strike me as a real bright guy. I seriously doubt he is bright enough to figure out how to pull off the perfect crime. He also seems to be very good at ignoring good advice.

It is mind boggling that this country has spent so much time on this particular not unusual killing. I blame Obama and his incompetent team. At a certain point both sides need to move on.

Just curious. Who has ever thought Martin "totally got what he deserved" to quote Mister Buddwing? I can't think of any one here who said that. I could be wrong; I don't pay much attention to trolls who post garbage. I try to be discerning and not project onto all present the intellectual farts of a child.

One can be against guns and concealed carry, but still recognize that the charge against Zimmerman is a travesty.

It is true that conservative legal advice would have been not to give a statement to police. There is a small possibility here that the prosecutor will twist innocent inconsistencies into a a case (although not likely based on how poorly the prosecutor performed at the bail hearing). But I think any honest and objective person looking at the video will conclude that there is no way to prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He never should have been charged.

I realize the grief and pain of Martin's family justifiably caused them to want Zimmerman arrested. But now, the evidence comes out asserting that their son was a vicious attacker that night who threatened to (and probably would have) killed an innocent man. They likely will never believe Zimmerman, but it is simply more pain for that poor family. The pain will be worse down the road when the charge is dismissed or Zimmerman is acquitted.

You have the right to remain silent. ANYTHING you say can AND WILL be used against you in a court of law.

That is why even the most innocent of people are advised to SHUT THE HELL UP when questioned by police. You must assume that they will always and everywhere twist and distort your words.

Let's be clear -- police do NOT question you in order to "find the facts." The purpose of police questioning is to create EVIDENCE TO USE AGAINST YOU. Their job is not to discover the truth, their job is to PUT YOU IN JAIL.

You may be right in action, but the police and prosecutors have a legal, ethical and moral obligation to find the facts and the truth. Failure to do so should cost them their jobs and, in some cases, their freedom.

This is the same thing I noticed the first week into the piece by piece revelations. It's a checklist story. It goes down the Stand Your Ground statute and each element and checks that box.

When I noticed that singularity, and said he probably got a telephone call seminar from Daddy, my thought was ridiculed as beyond all possibility since the Zimmerman's family were angels under constant lynch mob violence.

I did not think the two were related. But I still believe that George will walk IF he sticks to his perfect story.

Had Zimmerman been open-carrying, instead of concealed, deterrence might have been a factor. Unfortunately and ironically, you'll get hassled by the cops by open-carrying in most states. Ohio police will put you on the ground, cuff you, and take your weapon.

In Florida, open carry of firearms is only permitted for someone engaged in hunting or fishing. (Why fishing, I don't know. But this fact does lead to Florida gun-rights groups organizing open-carry fishing trips together...)

"Simply the concept of armed self-defense. I'm still trying to wrap my little brain around the idea that Zimmerman, who had the gun, had absolutely no choice but to fatally shoot Martin. (Isn't an argument in favor of a legally armed citizenry the idea that guns in the right hands will reduce violence, not increase it?)"

-- The way I explain this to people is to imagine a petite woman about to be raped by a larger, stronger man. Clearly, if she is armed, you would not deny her the right to defend herself. You would not demand that she show the gun and attempt to get the man to stop raping her. No, as soon as she is threatened, she should be allowed to defend herself. As soon as Martin was a clear threat to Zimmerman's life, Zimmerman is allowed to defend himself. The legal question is if Zimmerman had a legitimate reason to think he was in danger. I think it is very, very easy to prove he was. No one needs to submit to a few more punches or a few more head slams, just to see if they can resolve this without having to get violent.

Clearly, Zimmerman should have paused and submitted to arbitration/mediation first, and then, if this failed to stop the head bashing, only then could he defend himself, first with a warning that he would shoot, then, if that is ignored, a well-placed arm wound, then, if that failed, an abdominal wound, then a chest or head shot, but only one. Each shot must be per-approved by the arbitrator.

Here's a legit question. Let's say Zimmerman is completely wrong about how he and Martin met up again. He is wrong about exactly where he shot him. Everything is wrong except that Martin still is on top of him, beating his head into the ground.

Doesn't the prosecution still lose? Isn't that what they have to disprove? Nothing else matters if he claims self-defense.

1. I'm not sure how "too perfect" the re-enactment could be. It was recorded on February 27th, one day after the shooting and well before there was any national attention paid to the incident. It's a little like the assertion of a conspiracy on the part of Mark Fuhrman and other detectives at the crime scene where O.J. Simpson had butchered his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. It assumes they had time to strategize and formulate the conspiracy, when in fact they just arrived on a crime scene with no prior knowledge of who, what, where, or when.

2. I find it easy to imagine that with your head being slammed on concrete and being in an inferior position to a larger (taller) person who was on top of you and attacking you aggressively (and may have indicated that you would die that evening), that your brain could identify in microseconds that your life was in danger.

I do agree with you in general, but then again, his early cooperation and apparently true statements almost got him off, before politics got involved. The video you mentioned is awfully compelling but sometimes things work out the right way. Just not this time.

"I'm still trying to wrap my little brain around the idea that Zimmerman, who had the gun, had absolutely no choice but to fatally shoot Martin."

If Zimmerman had, as charged by the mob, been actually stalking Trayvon, he could have shot him without the fuss of getting his head bashed.

I spent a Saturday, or three hours of it, reading all the material at conservative tree house, which has an exhaustive amount of information, including the 7-11 videos (the complete ones not speeded up) and Trayvon's Facebook page screen shots.

First, the boy was a drug user, and possibly a dealer, who had multiple suspensions from school. He was using something called "lean" or "purple drank" or "sizzurp" a concoction of dextromethorphan, Arizona watermelon juice and Skittles, that produces a high at the cost of probable permanent brain damage.

Second, Zimmerman was NOT told to return to his truck and was not following Trayvon. He was trying to read the address of the house he was in front of. Actually, Zimmerman asked the dispatcher to have the cops call him on his cell phone so he could direct them to his location. One theory is that Trayvon doubled back and attacked Zimmerman in the rages that are seen often with chronic use of "purple drank."

The 7-11 video shows Trayvon moving slowly and weaving as though intoxicated. It also shows him asking the clerk for something behind the counter (where cough syrup is kept) and being refused.

There is a lot of information there and all of it suggests that Zimmerman is telling the truth.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have succeeded in stirring up a large racist mob that is intimidating the town. Angela Corey is doing a Mike Nifong for probably the same reason, black votes. The parents of Trayvon, after neglecting him while alive, are making a nice living from their fund raising travel to black churches.

If Obama is defeated in November, Zimmerman will get a fair trial or the charges dismissed, as they should be. If Holder and his boys and girls are still running the DoJ after November, Zimmerman, and the rest of us, are screwed.

I don't see a need to go looking into mystery drink concoctions that may or may not be drug related. The only fact that matters is: Was Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the ground? If so, practically nothing else matters.

As for it being libel: If Zimmerman is found not guilty, he can (and by all rights, should) be able to live the easy life by taking so many, many rich media personalities to the cleaner for libel. It won't happen, but by all rights, it should. If he is found guilty though, well, truth is the ultimate defense, so he won't win.

"But the earliest accounts we heard said Z moved the fight off of the concrete and onto the grass during the struggle, and later they both grabbed for the small gun in Z's waist band."

-- You are no more required to have your head bashed into a soft, downy pillow than into concrete. It doesn't matter if the fight was in a Jello pit -- if Zimmerman's life was in jeopardy, he can shoot.

"By the logic presented here, the Texas molester would have been within his Florida rights had he pulled a 9mm and tapped out the father beating him."

-- My understanding is that the Texas man stopped as soon as the molester was no longer a threat, so the two situations are not the same at all. Also, you see, one was a father stopping a rapist, the other was two guys making a series of bad decisions.

I too wondered initially about how perfectly Zimmerman's story followed Florida law on self-defense, but instead of attributing it to a phone call with his father (which would be easy to prove either way), I attributed it to the concealed carry class that he had taken with his wife.

But, it still comes back to the state proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was not in reasonable fear of death or major bodily injury at the hands of Martin, and I don't think that the state even comes close to a preponderance of the evidence there. Pretty much all of the physical evidence backs up Zimmerman's original story. For a conviction, the state would have to explain away Zimmerman's head, grass stains, eye witness account of seeing Martin on top of him, the time line, him talking to the police dispatcher and knowing that the police were enroute, etc.

Of course, the Martin family isn't worried about that. They mostly want their days in courts, both criminal and civil, and so are concentrated, I suspect, on generating enough FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) for the state to prevail in the immunity hearing, where their burden of proof is much lower (if Zimmerman gets immunity, the Martins cannot sue him, and their lawyer likely won't get paid).

Interesting ... how the prosecutorial mind works its way into that [seemingly perfect] statement to find how to flip it into evidence of guilt.

It's a bit of a stretch to label Cuomo's mind as "the prosecutorial mind" don'tcha think?

Real prosecutors would be mindful of the jury instruction equating a believable defense theory with reasonable doubt.

They would mostly look at the consistency of this material with prior statements and other evidence. His demeanor is irrelevant as is the perfection of his story (defendants' stories are always near-perfect by trial time). His head wounds and the ballistics are what they have been.

Given the nature of the evidence, Zimmerman has apparently been overcharged. The first investigating cop was probably right. It's manslaughter or it's nothing.

I'm still trying to wrap my little brain around the idea that Zimmerman, who had the gun, had absolutely no choice but to fatally shoot Martin.

Yep. That being pinned to the ground and having your head being bashed into concrete is life threatening is incredibly hard to get one's head around, isn't it?

Isn't an argument in favor of a legally armed citizenry the idea that guns in the right hands will reduce violence, not increase it?

Reduce, not eliminate. And they have. As gun ownership in the US has gone up dramatically in the last few years, violent crime has dropped. Which gores two left wing sacred cows: poverty causes crime and more guns means more crime. Poverty has increased and more guns have been purchased, yet crime has dropped. Super hard to get your head around isn't it? Through leftwing faith, there should be a river of blood flowing through the streets.

"By the logic presented here, the Texas molester would have been within his Florida rights had he pulled a 9mm and tapped out the father beating him."

Change "molester" to "observer", or "follower", or even "arguer", and yes he would have the right to defend himself with deadly force.

So again you are shown the obvious, but will refuse to see.

Dude, what happened to you? Did you get a wedgie from a neighborhood watch person in the past or what? Why this unhinged determination to assert the opposite of the evidence? No matter what or how strong it is, you need to either deny it, twist it or misinterpret it to fit a preconceived guilt for Zimmerman. Did he kick your dog or something?

"Zimmerman's reenactment "may be too perfect," says Chris Cuomo, as if "he checked every box to get himself off the hook for this crime."

I've heard this same sort of thought espoused by conspiracy theorists: " ''Evidence'' against the conspiracy actually helps prove the conspiracy". And yes, while they don't tend to say it so directly, their arguments do prove that they're serious when they whip out that line of logic.

Anyway... I don't know if Cuomo is on to something here, but my point is that putting it that way ends up seting off alarm bells in my head. I'd rather that a claimant worked from evidence rather than mere suspicion. And if he can't, then perhaps he should reflect on whether his observation is really about the subject of his declaration or simply a projection - or injection - of his views into the narrative. The latter isn't invalid, but it certainly is deceptive when it's passed off as analysis.

"Also interesting that nobody seems to want to talk about Raul Rodriguez"

Why on earth would it be a problem to talk about Rodriguez? The leftist mantra is that stand your ground laws protect murderers particularly when the victims are minorities. But Rodriguez didn't get away with murder, he was convicted. This case proves the leftist theory wrong, but apparently they're too stupid to realize it.

The same is true of the recent race based Oklahoma murder spree. In that case some young white asshole killed several black men because a black man killed his father last year. Contemporary accounts didn't provide any detail, so I assumed his father's killer was unidentified but known or assumed to be black.

Later I found an account in a foreign paper (US newspapers studiously avoiding anything unsupportive of the leftist narrative) the the killer was known, but uncharged because he was defending himself from the fathers' attack. So in that case stand your ground protected a black man from prosecution for killing a white man and it made so little news that when the white man's son murdered someone a year later it wasn't even mentioned. Compare that to the unbelievable outcry of the Zimmerman case.

I don't know whether Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, although the most compelling evidence I've seen is his bloodstained head. What I do know is the media and activist left are liars and fools.

I was just driving back from Home Depot and heard a talk show guy on KFI talking about the Martin case. He was repeating the wild misinformation that is driving this thing. The reason why drugs are important is that there is no explanation of why the kid did not just go home. He was 5 minutes away from the empty house of his dad's girlfriend.

One result of this case is that it will be a lot harder to recruit neighborhood watch volunteers from now on.

The history we have in Atlanta of prejudice leading to injustice was on display in a PBS 2 hour dramatization of "And The Dead Shall Rise."

As a child we could not go past Slaton drive in Buckhead with Grandmother Louise in the car without her re-telling the terror of a real lynch mob that came in force to Lynch Governor Slaton in 1913 when she was 17. The National guard barely got there in time.

But a few month's later the rural Cobb County civic leaders (NW of Atlanta across the Chattahoochee) arranged a midnight raid on the State Prison in Milledgeville where with complete insider cooperation they walked in and took a prisoner and drove 100 miles back to Marietta and hung Leo Frank from an oak tree.

Frank's death sentence had been commuted by the Governor.

Leo was convicted of a child murder because of prejudice of the rural counties around Atlanta against Jews and other rich Yankees in Atlanta running the reconstruction industries.

He was clearly innocent. But he was clearly Jewish.

Franks' hanging re-started a Neo-KKK that had been dormant since 1873. But this time it was made out of middle class political insiders and it went after outsiders they identified as Jews, Catholics, and incidentally, a few bad Negroes.

Atlanta was the enclave of civilization at that time, but it was surrounded by prejudice in rural Counties. It took some dedicated locals such as MLK and his black and white supporters at institutions such as Morehouse and Emory to courageously lead the rest of Georgia back into the light.

It is still about justice. And the Martin family has always asked for justice rather than prejudice.

Taking sides based only on skin color is too easy to do. Don't fall for it.

So traditionalguy first identifies events from before Travon's parents were born where the only connection is that victims shared skin color with Travon. Then he warns everyone not to take sides because of skin color.

So traditionalguy first identifies events from before Travon's parents were born where the only connection is that victims shared skin color with Travon. Then he warns everyone not to take sides because of skin color.

Not one to take his own advice, is he?

P.S. For those experiencing blogger trouble: post from the preview screen.

Courts personnel can seek blind justice, or courts can seek to please voters to win a political career in the next elections. That is the real lesson that the Leo Franks case and the rise of the Neo-KKK taught us.

But the will to seek justice can be made as a conscious decision by good men. Like quitting smoking, it can be done. We can demand it.

Those men carrying at birth 1/8, or 1/4, or 1/2, or 3/4 etc. black tribal DNA are our cousins. We like each other. Ask Skip Gates. Even the likable Tiger woods is 1/4 black.

Why fall into divide us traps set by clever politicians to get us to hate each other all to get some manipulative jerk elected? And he will not respect you in the morning for it.

Okay, I see your point about not wanting to punish innocents because of racism. That's valid. I just don't see the racism of "he was on top of the other guy, like a MMA fighter, banging his head against the concrete"

As for Mr Buddy, obvious troll is obvious.

As far as being "too perfect" it does raise hackles but most witnesses, and victims too, will have inconsitancies. It's human nature. And when a victim gets it too right the antena goes up. Again, human nature.

Here's a funny anecdote. When the police are questioning several suspects, and it's been a long session, the suspect that can nod off is generally the guilty party. He knows whats going on, he expects this. So he is more relaxed than the other suspects and hence more easily to let sleep grab him.

In Florida, open carry of firearms is only permitted for someone engaged in hunting or fishing. (Why fishing, I don't know. But this fact does lead to Florida gun-rights groups organizing open-carry fishing trips together...)

Alligators. There are few places in Florida that you can fish without the distinct possibilty of being eaten.

It has been used to trace female ancestry to Africa but not an individual. Mitochondria come from the mother. The sperm mitochondria are lost at fertilization. It is useful in tracing ancestry but the Africa theory is so far a theory.

BTW I know who my mother is. I figure the guy I call Dad really is my father, because I look a lot like the guy, but you never know for sure. The mother, however, is usually fairly easy to identify.

I also know her ancestral birthplace. I don't know anything really about my family tree more than a few generations back, which I think means that, in Massachusetts, I'm a Native American law professor. Alas, I'm not in Massachusetts, so as they say in the Marine Corps, I have to work for a living.

And "3/4 black tribal DNA" is an attempt to make "sambo" sound scientific. That's the term, right? I'm not from the South, so I had to look it up.

Now on my ostensible father's side, there isn't much of a paper trail, but since he grew up in a country where the Nazis took over and rounded up the Jews, I think it has more to do with my Jewish great-grandfather than anything else. People with Jewish ancestry weren't exactly Mormonesque about their genealogy in those parts, at that time.

It never occurred to me that I had, like 1/8 Israelite tribal DNA, nor that I was Boss Hogg's cousin. Actually "1/8 kike tribal DNA" sounds more poetic, so let's use that. I carried 1/8 kike tribal DNA at birth and, well-hell, I'm all y'all's cousin.

Now I have something to think about tonight before I settle into my nightmares.

Speaking about genealogy, one of these days I will have to spend some time at the local Mormon church. They have a family research library and they are the best source around for tracing ancestors. I got pretty far on my own since there is a national archives center about a mile away but the census records before 1860 are hard to get any info from. They provide only age, sex and family name. Canada has much better census records and I found out a lot about my great grandparents. The records ever recorded how many animals they had and what crops they grew.

I just watched Z's video satement to the investigators taken the next morning. He hits all points he needed to hit.

But I was surprized at how cool Z was in body language, speech cadence and descriptive gestures.

That will surprise a jury too. When viewed together with his bond hearing game, that will turn some to convict him, but the reasonable doubt will still be there for the others. That will result in either a compromise verdict on a manslaughter or a hung jury.

No big whoop. People often memorize complex, detailed alibis to get themselves off the hook. I don't know if that's what happened here or not (disclaimer for the screamers), but real life is often messy and less clear.

There seem to be two ways to view the injuries to Zimmerman that are readily visible on unedited video tapes:

(1) The situation played out just exactly the way Zimmerman described, and he pulled his gun and shot young Martin because he had no other means of self-defense.

or

(2) Zimmerman gunned down Trayvon Martin because he's a vile racist, and then broke his own nose and banged his own head on the ground to cover it up.

Somehow I keep leaning towards #1, particularly since one person witnessed the fight and says that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, pounding him like an MMA fighter. Two people said that they saw Zimmerman standing over Martin's body with a gun in his hand, but note that both came out after the gun shot. This is consistent with story #1, but not at all consistent with story #2 because if story #2 was true then when did Zimmerman beat his own head against the ground?

As nearly as I can tell the entire case against Zimmerman boils down to if the authorities don't put him behind bars then Black people will be really, really unhappy.

People often memorize complex, detailed alibis to get themselves off the hook.

I personally don't think this Zimmerman guy is that smart. He's not leopold and loeb (of course they got caught, in the end, so maybe that's a bad exampe).

This idea requires way, way too much conspiracy stuff for my taste. Once you start trying to explain why Z called the cops and how the witnesses back him up and the physica evidence backs him up...you have to imagine a highly, highly unlikely scenario to make this anything other than self-defense.

Nobody knows just what was going through his head, whether he thought he was acting in self-defense or just figured it would be a fun time to play tough guy with someone's head on the pavement. Nobody knows. It's hard to say just what he was doing, to say nothing of thinking, that night, given the time lapses and other things.

But... If I were raising a son, I'd present this as a cautionary tale to illustrate "live like a thug, die like a thug."

Acting "gangsta" might scare some people, and make a young man's ego swell. But he might try it once, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and end up dead.

That's a very old lesson. Read some old stories, and listen to some old songs. It's not about "deserve". But it is something for a young man to know.

Self-defense is about what the person defending himself deserves -- not about what the person he's defending himself FROM deserves.

Person X jumps person Y and starts beating on him. Person Y deserves to avoid harm. Person X has forfeited his right to be free from harm. That's why Person Y is justified in using force to defend himself.

Visible facts from the video: Zimmerman does not look very big. Trayvon would not have felt physically intimidated by him. Zimmerman has head injuries. He was assaulted.....Trayvon is not around to give his side of the story, and, as Cuomo says, Zimmerman's story is perfect. Maybe Zimmerman confronted Trayvon in a confrontational way or did something else to provoke his ire. But, for all that, I don't see how one can doubt that Zimmerman got attacked and was getting the worst of it, and that that was the reason why he shot Trayvon.....The most blatant prejudices in this case are not being demonstrated by the Zimmerman supporters.

Is this idiot (Cuomo) actually suggesting that the prosecution will present the video, thus allowing Zimmerman to testify without testifying, then present some witnesses whose testimony agrees with every detail of the video, and then rest their case? Then make a closing argument to the effect that "We don't have any evidence to support any other theory than the one you just heard, and in fact it is very hard to think of one, but don't you think it is a little too perfect?"

I have to say, I don't have a very high opinion of Angela Corey, based upon that charging document, but I don't think she is *that* stupid. I am even a little surprised Cuomo is that stupid. A little.

BTW, could people spend a few minutes reading over at The Conservative Treehouse before they spew their ignorance all over this blog? Martin wasn't five minutes from home, he about 100 yards away. And about 90 seconds passed between the time Z lost sight of him and the time he attacked Z. So, he had 90 seconds to cover 100 yards to total safety, and at the end of that 90 seconds, he was ten feet from Z. Sounds like an innocent teenager trying to get home to me.

"No big whoop. People often memorize complex, detailed alibis to get themselves off the hook. I don't know if that's what happened here or not (disclaimer for the screamers), but real life is often messy and less clear."

-- Doesn't he say he's not sure about several points and Zimmerman has said his memory is a bit hazy from getting his head beat around? If he were going to have a perfect, pat lie, why have Martin say anything to him at all in his story? He could say: "I don't know if he said anything, but he hit me." Same effect, without the issue that he might misremember some words.

Also, he knew there were witnesses who saw Martin on him, hitting him. If he wanted to, he could have refused to speak and we'd be in the same situation. Telling a story is dangerous for him, so why do it?

-- "Acting "gangsta" might scare some people, and make a young man's ego swell. But he might try it once, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and end up dead."

I remember as a kid, we had a friend who liked to pick fights. One day, he picked a fight with another kid who broke his arm and did something that put his back in a brace. He never picked another fight. It's a lesson that's best learned when kids are young (I think we were teenagers then, so kids were big enough now to really hurt people and didn't heal as quick).

Two five year olds getting into a fight isn't going to permanently scar them, most likely, but they may get the picture that fighting is not fun. Ideally, they wouldn't have to learn like this, but some people do.

I wonder if you would be willing to say to Martin's family members, or even in public among strangers, that Martin got what he deserved. And that on the strength of your firm knowledge of the facts of the case, you "stand by it." I don't know. Maybe you are boorish and self-righteous enough that you would actually do so. If this is the case then, well, bully for you. I guess.

Althouse comment boards are a prime example of the disinhibition effect that plagues the internet.

It would be poor form to say that to Martin's family. But I have said that in RL public discussions. Especially to those rubes who bought the "innocent 14 year old just out to buy some skittles and tea". I don't know why thats an act of hubris to you.

I don't write things here that I wouldn't say to anyone's face.

...said the anon sockpuppet

Your words might carry some weight and even influence me if you weren't such a hypocrite.

It's not the caricature of "civility" that you all imagine it to be. It's an issue that sort of plagues the digital revolution, I think. A matter of asking whether it is worthwhile to be something similar online, to what one is offline. Noone is the same; we all will be disinhibited some--especially with anonymity. But yes, overwhelmingly, I write things here that I also say to real people (and not just echo chamber people with whom I agree, either). How about you?

You are right that it gets far worse elsewhere. But that seems to me a fairly lame cover, in the end. "We're not as ugly as _________" would be a good album title, but isn't much of an argument. It'sa very rare commenter on these boards indeed, who treats dissent with anything resembling respect. Except for, on occasion, the issue of gay rights. For a blind groundhog will find an acorn every now and then.

But yes, overwhelmingly, I write things here that I also say to real people (and not just echo chamber people with whom I agree, either). How about you?

[yawn]. I already told you that I do the same.

And this is not an echo chamber. People here are continually arguing with each other.

very rare commenter on these boards indeed, who treats dissent with anything resembling respect

Wrong again. If you don't get respect here its because your arguments are fallacious bullshit. Thats the problem with Althouse. Most of our lefty commenters are, at best, sophists. If you want to be treated with respect, try for something better than "Bush did it too".

I feel the same way about "too perfect". One of his problems is that he never identified himself as a neighborhood watch as Martin was walking past his vehicle. And it would be something he would say face to face to Martin. His story is too perfect with regard to not being able to tell Martin who he was or to step away from Martin. Martin comes up from behind (apparently enraged) and Zimmerman has no chance to do anything other than say he doesn't have a problem and begin fighting.

I often use the internet to hone arguments for things I intend to say in the future, IRL. Consider the following statement:

"IF what Hitler had said about the Jews had been true THEN the Holocaust would have been justified"

Note, my use of IF-THEN, as the Holocaust was clearly appalling. That said, the abstract concept opens the door to dealing harshly with identifiably separate groups within society who are socially destructive.